(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an 11 October 2004 FXI statement: FXI supports ETV and SABC’s bid for a live broadcast of the Shaik trial The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has today urged Judge Hillary Squires of the Durban High Court to allow South Africa’s free- to- air-television channel ETV, and the country’s public […]
(FXI/IFEX) – The following is an 11 October 2004 FXI statement:
FXI supports ETV and SABC’s bid for a live broadcast of the Shaik trial
The Freedom of Expression Institute (FXI) has today urged Judge Hillary Squires of the Durban High Court to allow South Africa’s free- to- air-television channel ETV, and the country’s public broadcaster, the South African Broadcasting Corporation (SABC), to transmit live broadcasts of the corruption trial against businessman Mr. Shabir Shaik.
This trial commenced today and it relates to allegations that Shaik offered bribes or has been in an allegedly corrupt relationship with the country’s Deputy President, Mr. Jacob Zuma. The state alleges that as a result of this relationship, Shaik has in the past used the Deputy President to influence the granting of government contracts to his companies. A central prong of this trial touches on the so called “arms deal saga” where in the late 1990s, the South African government entered into contracts with international and local companies to supply the country with armaments worth over $10 billion. Among other things, it is alleged that Deputy President Zuma solicited a sum of approximately $100 000 per annum from French Arms Company, Thompson (Now Thint) International, in order to protect it (Thint) from government investigations in the future.
In a press statement released today 11 October 2004, FXI stated that as a public interest free expression lobby group, it strongly believed that freedom of expression, media freedom and access to information are critical in ensuring the free flow of information and ideas and encouraging public participation, transparency and accountability of government and other institutions of society. FXI further remarked that in the past, it had actively campaigned for media access into inquiries conducted by judicial and semi-judicial tribunals on a diverse range of matters including hearings for the appointment of judges by the Judical Services Commission (1996) and the cricket match fixing scandal (2000).
The institute observed that electronic media has the highest penetration of all the media in South Africa and that it is therefore the vehicle through which the majority of the people receive their information. Given this fact, FXI said it would:
“Be an act of gross injustice to deny the public its right to be informed promptly and timeously about the serious allegations made by the State against Shabir Shaik and certain local and international companies as there are also allegations relating to the use or misuse of huge amounts of public funds in the so called “arms deal saga” as well as political implications for the country because of the alleged involvement of Deputy President Jacob Zuma.”
Additionally, FXI argued that recent experience has shown that media reporting of the proceedings and hearings in many institutions of state such as Parliament and the courts of law has the impact of both demystifying their activities and also enabling ordinary members of the public to identify with and appreciate such institutions’ relevance to their every day lives. This much can be said to have been the case with the Hefer Commission of Inquiry, which sat in Bloemfontein between October and December 2003 to hear allegations that the then head of the country’s National Prosecuting Authority, Mr. Bulelani Ngcuka, was an apartheid spy. Much of the South African public followed the live broadcasts from these proceedings with abiding interest and consummate intensity.
Finally, FXI said it believed strongly that the public’s right to know whether or not there was corruption in the so called “arms deal saga” overrides many other considerations that may be proffered by both the State and the defence such as for instance that witnesses may be intimidated or that a live transmission of the proceedings may amount to an unfair trial against the accused persons.
